If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

None of that matter CKB. Because regardless of whether Genghis used traditional sige warfare, or the "surrender or die" tactic, those follow up deaths likely would have occured anyway. The savings in lives came from those cities which didn't undergo siege. Simply from escaping the innevitable disease which such warfare brings you have a savings in lives overall. Disease has always killed more people in warfare than actual weapons. This is no different.

The difference is that Genghis Khan ordered the massacre of whole populations in Khwarezm out of revenge. This was NOT the same tactic used previously, where the ONLY purpose of massacre was to make future conquest easier. You won't find 25% of the populace of northern China killed as a result of Genghis Khan prior to the invasion of Khwarezm.

So, compared to even his own previous conquests, the percentage of dead far exceeded what was the norm. This is the equivalent of what we today call genocide, and it happened on a massive scale. So, no I don't see an argument suggesting that those deaths were inevitable, since we have similar situations (without the deliberate massacre for reasons other than psychological warfare) to compare it to.

The difference is that Genghis Khan ordered the massacre of whole populations in Khwarezm out of revenge. This was NOT the same tactic used previously, where the ONLY purpose of massacre was to make future conquest easier. You won't find 25% of the populace of northern China killed as a result of Genghis Khan prior to the invasion of Khwarezm.

So, compared to even his own previous conquests, the percentage of dead far exceeded what was the norm. This is the equivalent of what we today call genocide, and it happened on a massive scale. So, no I don't see an argument suggesting that those deaths were inevitable, since we have similar situations (without the deliberate massacre for reasons other than psychological warfare) to compare it to.

I was refering to the fact that regardless of his methods of warfare, those people still die because he just wanted them to die.

The difference between those killings and genocide however is that he wasn't trying to wipe a whole "people" off the map. He wasn't trying to kill all ethnic Chinese, just the people in a political region.

In Darfur, they are killing people because of the color of theri skin, not because of who they vote for.

- "What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means -- either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . ."-Carl von Clausewitz-

I was refering to the fact that regardless of his methods of warfare, those people still die because he just wanted them to die.

The difference between those killings and genocide however is that he wasn't trying to wipe a whole "people" off the map. He wasn't trying to kill all ethnic Chinese, just the people in a political region.

In Darfur, they are killing people because of the color of theri skin, not because of who they vote for.

He WAS trying to wipe out entire populations, regardless of how you label that population. This was his revenge for the killing of his ambassadors. And that IS an example of genocide, since that was a systematic and planned extermination of an entire nation or political group.

That he managed to "only" kill 1/4 of the populace doesn't detract from that, especially since many were killed after the conquest.

And evidence suggests many of "those people" would NOT have died otherwise. The stats tell you that. 25% of the populace was killed by Genghis Khan in those 2 years in Khwarezm. Most campaigns by Genghis Khan prior to that didn't end with that high a percentage killed.

And again, the proper term here is democide, which refers to any murder by government, not genocide, especially if you're going to lump stuff from Mao, Stalin and others from the past in comparison (otherwise, you can't list all deaths due to say Stalin as the result of genocide for example).

He WAS trying to wipe out entire populations, regardless of how you label that population. This was his revenge for the killing of his ambassadors. And that IS an example of genocide, since that was a systematic and planned extermination of an entire nation or political group.

That he managed to "only" kill 1/4 of the populace doesn't detract from that, especially since many were killed after the conquest.

And evidence suggests many of "those people" would NOT have died otherwise. The stats tell you that. 25% of the populace was killed by Genghis Khan in those 2 years in Khwarezm. Most campaigns by Genghis Khan prior to that didn't end with that high a percentage killed.

And again, the proper term here is democide, which refers to any murder by government, not genocide, especially if you're going to lump stuff from Mao, Stalin and others from the past in comparison (otherwise, you can't list all deaths due to say Stalin as the result of genocide for example).

I'm saying that the "democide" you're referring to has nothing to do with his methods of conquest, thus they would have died anyway regardless of whether he used siege tactics, or terror tactics.

Oh, and for the record, I said genocide, and I meant genocide. Especially in the original sense, deriving from the word "genus". Wiping out of a distinct people, as we are seeing in Darfur, not the people of a nation which is only a political unit.

I'm saying that the "democide" you're referring to has nothing to do with his methods of conquest, thus they would have died anyway regardless of whether he used siege tactics, or terror tactics.

Oh, and for the record, I said genocide, and I meant genocide. Especially in the original sense, deriving from the word "genus". Wiping out of a distinct people, as we are seeing in Darfur, not the people of a nation which is only a political unit.

Yeah, well the stats suggest not as many people would have died. I mean we have estimates to compare the result of the methods used in Khwarezm to methods used in other conquests. And rarely do you see anything on the order of 25% killed. So, the evidence isn't there to suggest they would have died anyway.

And as far as the use of the word "genocide" is concerned, even if you insist on using it what you said is inaccurate. You said this:

QUOTE:
"I'd say that the biggest difference is that those migrations didn't involve genocide".
-------------------

Well, that's false. By the way, the last statement in that post where you said " 'No quarter' is a recent development in human evolution." is also false. There are lots of examples of "no quarter" being given in the past.

So, insisting on genocide won't make what you said accurate. However, using democide instead allows for a better comparison of total deaths, since you don't have to worry about whether the deaths fit the strict definition of genocide then.

Yeah, well the stats suggest not as many people would have died. I mean we have estimates to compare the result of the methods used in Khwarezm to methods used in other conquests. And rarely do you see anything on the order of 25% killed. So, the evidence isn't there to suggest they would have died anyway.

And as far as the use of the word "genocide" is concerned, even if you insist on using it what you said is inaccurate. You said this:

QUOTE:
"I'd say that the biggest difference is that those migrations didn't involve genocide".
-------------------

Well, that's false. By the way, the last statement in that post where you said " 'No quarter' is a recent development in human evolution." is also false. There are lots of examples of "no quarter" being given in the past.

So, insisting on genocide won't make what you said accurate. However, using democide instead allows for a better comparison of total deaths, since you don't have to worry about whether the deaths fit the strict definition of genocide then.

What you continue to fail to recognize CKB is that THOSE deaths were the result of revenge, as you said. They are a seperate issue from the normal conquests of the Mongols, and as such, not a part of that discusion. What part of that eludes you?

And when I said "no quarter", I was referring again to genocidal acts, not individual acts. Of course "no quarter" has been used for as long as mankind has waged war.

But in general, mankinds conflicts for most of his history consisted of either conquering enemies, or pushing them out. It's incredibly wasteful and expensive to try to wipe a whole ethnic group off the planet. The systematic act of doing so is for the most part a much more recent development in human history.

What you continue to fail to recognize CKB is that THOSE deaths were the result of revenge, as you said. They are a seperate issue from the normal conquests of the Mongols, and as such, not a part of that discusion. What part of that eludes you?

And when I said "no quarter", I was referring again to genocidal acts, not individual acts. Of course "no quarter" has been used for as long as mankind has waged war.

But in general, mankinds conflicts for most of his history consisted of either conquering enemies, or pushing them out. It's incredibly wasteful and expensive to try to wipe a whole ethnic group off the planet. The systematic act of doing so is for the most part a much more recent development in human history.

Yep. But I view the OT as a group of lesson telling stories, not a history book. I give as much credence to the story of Gilgamesh and his flood as I do to Noahs. All of it is probably based on some factual events, but I doubt that almost any of them are even close to exactly right.

Again, slaughtering a whole race or ethnicity of people just isn't that EASY without disease or some other mass factor.

What you continue to fail to recognize CKB is that THOSE deaths were the result of revenge, as you said. They are a seperate issue from the normal conquests of the Mongols, and as such, not a part of that discusion. What part of that eludes you?

And when I said "no quarter", I was referring again to genocidal acts, not individual acts. Of course "no quarter" has been used for as long as mankind has waged war.

But in general, mankinds conflicts for most of his history consisted of either conquering enemies, or pushing them out. It's incredibly wasteful and expensive to try to wipe a whole ethnic group off the planet. The systematic act of doing so is for the most part a much more recent development in human history.

The last paragraph I have no argument with. The second paragraph is fine, except that genocidal acts involving "no quarter" have existed for a long time - that's not a recent development.

And the first paragraph would be OK if our debate was on another topic, not the topic we were on, which was whether genocide existed (not just isolated examples) in the past. Well, sure they did, and one very good example was Khwarezm. Remember? That's what the topic was to which cnc66 and I gave the Mongols as a counter-example (to your claim many of these migrations didn't involve genocide).

It was in response to that counter-example that you brought up the argument of "they would have died anyway", which is likely false (just using statistics). The question had to do with genocide and migrations (of people in Central Asia), not what was a "normal" conquest or not.

The last paragraph I have no argument with. The second paragraph is fine, except that genocidal acts involving "no quarter" have existed for a long time - that's not a recent development.

And the first paragraph would be OK if our debate was on another topic, not the topic we were on, which was whether genocide existed (not just isolated examples) in the past. Well, sure they did, and one very good example was Khwarezm. Remember? That's what the topic was to which cnc66 and I gave the Mongols as a counter-example (to your claim many of these migrations didn't involve genocide).

It was in response to that counter-example that you brought up the argument of "they would have died anyway", which is likely false (just using statistics). The question had to do with genocide and migrations (of people in Central Asia), not what was a "normal" conquest or not.

There will of course be isolated exceptions to any rule. But the example of Genghis Khan you are using is almost the exception which proves the rule. You have one person, who through personal insult wanted a whole group wiped out. In Darfur we have a whole group who wants to wipe out another whole group. Not push them out, not take what they have, not conquer them. They want to exterminate them. And no, in ancient times, you generally didn't see a whole group of people trying to exterminate another whole group of people.